Talk:Greco-Italian War

Battles

• Battle of Pindus
• Battle of Elaia–Kalamas
• Battle of Korcë
• Battle of Morava-Ivan
• Capture of Klisura Pass
• Battle of Trebeshina
• Italian Spring Offensive

Query

Is Thelematarios you know who?Keith-264 (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, I think this one is from the other side of the hill.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Here I am, lets talk about it Thelematarios —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Template:Infobox military conflict

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Keith-264 (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh well, ok then, thanks mate Thelematarios —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing but the best for my public ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I Think it's time to request this page to be blocked by some time. Hong Tray (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

AgreedKeith-264 (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Result section

If the results is showing 'see aftermath', it's almost certainly controversial, hence this section. I would've expected to see some discussion if not on the talk page then at least in one of the archives for why the results is 'see aftermath'. I found that there is such a discussion, in archive 3, but two of the people in that discussion have since been blocked for abusively using multiple accounts, so I'm no longer sure that applies (besides it was 3 years ago).

I think this should be classified as a Greek victory because they did defeat the Italians. They would later be defeated by the Germans, but that has its own article, Battle of Greece. Notably the Germans are not mentioned at all as a belligerent in this article. The aftermath section also states that the Italians had suffered a serious setback.

It might be better to excise the later German intervention from this article and redirect the reader to Battle of Greece. The two phases of the war are clearly different, and if we are to include the German intervention into this article, then perhaps both articles can be merged to one, the Germans included as a belligerent, and the results listed as "Axis victory". All or nothing, not half-and-half. Banedon (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions. I agree with both your points. It's about time someone called a spade a spade. Athenean (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, provided that the result is described as a "tactical victory" or "major tactical victory" (like the Battle of Caporetto in WWI). The Italians wanted to arrive to Athens in a couple of weeks, but the Greeks resisted and almost threw them at sea: anyway they did not manage to do it, neither the Italians asked for an armistice. The situation when the Germans intervened was a stalemate but, if they had not intervened, the war would have continued: and, as long as the fight continues, there is no complete/strategic victory. P.S. BTW, I just noticed that today is the 28th: good Ohi Day to our Greek fellows! :-) Alex2006 (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You can't do that because of this Template:Infobox military conflict

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

please read it. Earlier discussions are in the archive where this was gone into exhaustively. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware the template exists but I think it should not apply in this case, because Greece won a fairly clear-cut victory. There are two distinct phases in this war, and while the overall war went to the Axis powers (note 'Axis powers' - Italy alone did not win) the first phase was still won by the Greeks. This being an article on the first phase, we should therefore class it as a Greek victory, and remove mention of the second phase to its own article. Banedon (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree this can be considered a Greek victory. The article is not about the battle of Albania or who push 10km the other around, it's about the entire conflict, the one which didn't end good for Greece. Hong Tray (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If this is about the entire conflict would you call the Battle of France a French victory? After all, France was victorious in WW2. This particular conflict with Italy did end well for Greece, just the later one against the Germans did not. Banedon (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You either didn't understand what I said or are using my argument against yourself. The Battle of France was a specific encounter of the war that ended in a German victory, while the overall result wasn't. Of course both countries got surrender in the meantime and were later part of the final coalition victory.

You link the result of the Battle of Greece to this war, which is a "specific encounter" that ended with a Greek victory, while the overall result wasn't. Of course, technically the 'overall result' was also a Greek win, since WWII ended with an Axis defeat. More sensibly, if the Battle of Greece is part of the Greco-Italian war, then we should 1) delete that article and merge it to this one, and 2) include Germany as a belligerent in this article. If it isn't part of the Greco-Italian war, then we should 1) label this as a Greek victory or at least a Greek tactical victory, and 2) remove the overly-long mention of the Battle of Greece from this article with a redirect to that article. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Keith-264: sorry, I did not know this template. If there is a template with an underlying guideline, of course this has to be followed. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Me neither, I'm only just getting the hang of it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If it were simple, such as the outcome of the First World War (Allied victory), then I would argue that the infobox should reflect that. As it is, the outcome of this conflict is not as simple (initial defeat of the Italian offensive, stalemate, German intervention, and ultimately complete defeat); focusing on one over the other is unbalanced, not NPOV, against sources, etc.) and linking to the aftermath section - per the infobox guidelines - should be followed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@EnigmaMcmxc:, thanks for your explanation! Anyway, something is strange: for example, the First Battle of the Marne is classified as "Allied victory": but here the Frenchs were able to block the Germans, exactly as the Greeks blocked the Italians; on the other side, the Battle of Caporetto is classified as "Central powers victory", although the Italians were able to block the enemy along the Piave (both Frenchs and Italians at the end were the winner). The only explanation is that this parameter registers the prevalent opinion of the sources about winner and loser about each conflict, since otherwise I don't see any logic in those definitions. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC

I think the difficulty lies in it being a win-lose criterion being used in wars of exhaustion without decisive battles, so the dates of the battle act as periods even though the events were part of a series. Tactics, operations and strategy are affected but in different proportions, hence after the defeat at Caporetto the Italians had a revival, just like the Germans at Cambrai in November. I think that's why the criterion is questionable and the guide says put it in the Analysis section where the complications can be described. Sadly there isn't always a prevalent opinion. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Verstanden. :-) In the Italian literature, this war is often defined as "Campagna di Grecia": this definition helps possibly to put it in its right context, which is that of an episode of WWII. Defining it as "War", it is understandable that some people wants to share their opinion about who was the winner. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There's enough of a lack of consensus here that I think I'll begin an RfC. Two options right now, one being to classify this as a Greek victory and remove mention of the Battle of Greece to its own article, and the other is to maintain the status quo. If anyone has more options to add, please share. Banedon (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there consensus among the RS? What seems to bedevil this criterion in the infobox is the definition of decisive. Not everyone uses the Clausewitzian sense of a battle which has political results. Does anyone treat the German arrival in Libya as a development in a war or a new one? Keith-264 (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I have not extensively searched the literature, but the articles I've seen on this war (searched for via Google) treat it separately from the later German invasion. Banedon (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with the RfC with three options: in addition to the two mentioned above, the third option would be to merge the Battle of Greece article with this one, and call it an Axis victory. 00:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Since German war aims in the Balkans were different to the Italians', I want the articles to stay separate but both could do with more description of context and the overlapping of German and Italian interests. Italian belligerence in the Balkans was part of a generally aggressive policy in north and east Africa too, which was also going wrong at the same time. A line has to be drawn somewhere though and I'm broadly satisfied with the status quo. @ Banedon, you might have seen that before the extensive revision this year, the overlap with the German invasion was a much bigger section, which did unbalance the end of the article. I'd be inclined to put more effort into Military history of Italy during World War II as a hub where the strategic niceties are discussed in detail and linked to the various campaign articles. I don't think that there's a right answer to the conundrums being discussed but I'm sure that we can find a balance that's less unsatisfactory to all of us, than we've already achieved. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Strength of Airforces

In the box it is stated that 77 aircraft on allied site were involved in the conflict? On what is this number based, considering that there were 4 to 5 RAF Squadrons and also greek aircraft! From this statement "At the outbreak of the war the operational combat fleet of the Greek Air Force counted 24 PZL P.24 and nine Bloch MB.151 fighters, as well as eleven Bristol Blenheim Mk IV, ten Fairey Battle B.1 and eight Potez 633 B2 bombers.[83]" the number of aircraft would be 62(?), so 15 fewer than the 77 mentioned above, or were the 15 the RAF aircraft from the 4 to 5 squadrons -- 151.136.147.179 (talk)

The infobox does not provide a date range (the initial strength, after British planes arrived etc). Now while I cant provide an answer about what figure is used, I have been able to dig up the following on the RAF:

The RAF brought about 80 aircraft with it to Greece, in March '41: source. The following source suggests the force was built up further in April, although a large proportion was not serviceable: source. Total losses (in the air, on the ground, abandoned, accidents, and blown up during the retreat) amount to 209: source, and source to name a few. Although it should be noted that this figure includes losses outside of the time span of this article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: The relation between Greco-Italian War and Battle of Greece

How should we proceed with this article?

Option 1: Write mostly about the Greece-Italy conflict, with a small mention in the aftermath section for the subsequent German invasion and a redirect to Battle of Greece. Label this war a Greek victory.
Option 2: Treat the Greece-Italy war and the later German invasion as part of the same war. Merge the two articles, label it as an Axis victory, and include Germany as a belligerent.
Option 3: Maintain the status quo.
Option 4: Any other options?

Banedon (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Greeks threw back the Italian offensive yet they did not win the conflict as it bogged down into a stalemate. Do any sources support going as far as to call the whole war an Italian victory?

Option 4, I would suggest, would be expanding the infobox to show the complicated nature of the conflict that the status quo has attempted to resolve (edits from both pro-Italians and pro-Greeks claiming victory in the infobox). My vote would be to maintain the status quo, link to the aftermath section and let it fully explain.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Suggest it be renamed Italian invasion of Greece, as this defines it accurately and concisely, and limit it to the actions taken by the Italians against Greece from 28 October 1940 to 6 April 1941, as after that date it was an Axis invasion, which eliminated many of the difficulties Italy had suffered during its unilateral action that started in 1940. Anything that happened after 5 April 1941 was part of a completely different dynamic, as the Germans were attacking Greece right along their northern border. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Content-wise I agree with Peacemaker's analysis. However the naming is another issue, primarily determined by common use, and here it has become established to talk about the Italian–Greek conflict as a "war" in itself rather than as a phase of an Axis campaign or of a "Balkan front" of WW2. I think the whole "who won what" question has derailed the discussion in this article too much, and the lack of nuance that is inherent in infoboxes has exacerbated this. Greece "won" this war if "winning" is counted as repelling the enemy invasion, taking territory from him, and humbling his pride. It "lost", or better could never hope to win, when the conflict is viewed against the scope of Italy's alliance within the Axis with Germany. Unless Yugoslavia and Turkey entered the conflict in force (and with more success than actually displayed by Yugoslavia), Greece alone stood no chance. The country was close to exhaustion and scarcely capable of continuing the war in Albania by April 1941, let alone facing a two-front war against the world's most potent war machine. Italy "won" in so far as its troops in the end entered Athens and occupied two-thirds of the country. It "lost" in so far as the war displayed the military ineptitude of the Italian high command, destroyed the prestige of Fascism abroad and (more importantly) at home, and made Italy firmly into a client of Germany. Even Germany, who was perhaps the clearest "winner", "lost" in the sense that it had to open up another front and deploy forces where it had no interest in doing so. Even if Greece did not delay Barbarossa, the whole Balkan imbroglio throughout the war was something Hitler could have done without. This whole bruhaha has come about by insisting on narrow and self-serving views of "victory" and "defeat", which simply don't suffice to describe the complexity oft he conflict. Constantine ✍ 09:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Constantine. Best to avoid the use of terms like "victory" or "defeat". But one thing is clear: Greece and Britain were defeated in the end by a joint German and Italian Axis effort. However, to unilaterally say that the Greco-Italian war ended on the 5th April is not entirely true as the Greeks and Italians were fighting until the 20th April I believe.46.11.225.84 (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think that the article should stay the Greco-Italian War if the RS call it that and because until it went wrong for Italy, it was part of an Italian policy of aggression that began long before 1939. In 1940-41 Italian aggression was subsumed by the German wars but that makes the war with Greece distinct enough for me to keep it separate. The Greco-Italian War had reached a stalemate by the time of the German invasion, neither side had won. Operation Marita was an invasion rather than an intervention in someone else's quarrel (that was the British contribution) but it made the Greco-Italian War irrelevant anyway. If this page needs more explicit linkage I think that it should be with Military history of Italy during World War II, where most of the history and strategic exposition should be. Perhaps a complication is that these days, the Italian place in WWII is being given more nuance (at least from 1935 or 1939 to early-1941) and shown to be more independent of the Germans than in earlier accounts. Keith-264 (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I would observe that the forces in conflict in what are really two separate campaigns of WWII (not wars on their own) were massively different on the Axis side, both politically and militarily. The Italians (on their own) put in what they thought would be sufficient to defeat Greece via Albania, and they failed ignominiously. That failure resulted in the German-led Axis invasion, because of Germany's need to secure its southern flank for Barbarossa. The first campaign had descended into stalemate well before the second campaign began, even if the second followed the first as night follows day. I would also observe that, when a simple blunt Google Books search is conducted, there is a serious issue with common use. Firstly, Greco-Italian War gets 118 hits, but Italian invasion of Greece seems to get substantially more. I'll note that Google Books seems to be having a conniption in the latter example, but it certainly seems indicative? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• The German invasion was for German reasons as far as its plans for eastern Europe were concerned but there was also a desire to stop the Mussolini regime from collapsing, hence the concurrent involvement in Libya, which had other motives as well. I would treat the Italian campaigns in Ethiopia, Spain, Greece and Egypt as distinct from the war that began further north in 1939. All too complicated for the infobox so relegating it to the Aftermath section seems inescapable. Keith-264 (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• I agree totally with Constantine's analysis. Anyway, I disagree with "Italian invasion of Greece": this title is misleading: there was never an "Italian invasion of Greece" (except in the first week), but rather a "Greek invasion of Albany", and the campaign ended with an "Axis invasion of Greece", since without the Germans I strongly doubt that the Italians would had been ever able to arrive to Athens. Alex2006 (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate, the Greeks appeared to have ran out of steam and unable to complelty defeat the Italians or drive them from the Balkans thus had no way of ending the war. That, is not winning a war either.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Beyond what Alessandro57 said, the war with Greece was build up from the concept of "parallel war" by Mussolini. This case is more like the Winter War and less like the Italian invasion of France. Hong Tray (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This is exact: this was the last attempt of Mussolini to lead a "Guerra parallela". The sad (for him) end of his attempt came from Hitler, who "struck his fingers with the ruler", as Ciano (Diari, 22 November 1940) effectively wrote. Alex2006 (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That said, I don't know why Italian invasion of Greece can't be a article on it's on. And BTW, if someone expect to mess with the Battle of Greece, shouldn't this be discussed there too?Hong Tray (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What do the RS say?Keith-264 (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I suppose there's plenty of material if someone wish to write an article. Hong Tray (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Option 1 less the "victory" bit The scope of this article should be the fighting between 28 October 1940 and 5 April 1941, the Aftermath section should refer to the combined Axis invasion of Greece. I suggest the "Result" bit in the infobox should read "See Aftermath section" rather than try to explain the outcome with a couple of words. It is far more complex than a Greek victory, because this campaign directly resulted in the German-led invasion. I am not sure about the title, or the fact that it was a separate "war" any more than the Italian invasion of Albania was a separate "war". They are all just campaigns between different members of the Axis and Allies/Neutrals that were part of the overall World War. It was an Italian invasion of Greece that was unsuccessful and quickly developed into a stalemate. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What would it be called? What sources treats the subject in this frame? Hong Tray (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

These, which show that (in raw Google Books hits, at least) "Italian attack on Greece" is at least as common as "Greco-Italian War". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to raw references of this conflict, as it's obvious that there's plenty, but of which one cut this timeframe and how they call it. Hong Tray (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If you browse the results of "how (what) they call it", you will see how they "cut" it. There certainly is no justification for a third article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Peacemaker, although I'm not impressed by quantitative analysis from Burgle (Google to you) which doesn't appear to be limited to RS. If the title is to be changed, then Italo-Greek War might be better, since the Italians started it. The German invasion seems coincidental to Italian aggression, rather than complementary. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly not suggesting we ignore the RS, Keith. I'm just making the point that the raw Google Books results are fairly evenly matched. That usually means the RS are as well. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't infer that you were. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh what a tangled web we weave -

When first we tried to deceive!!!

My sincere advice: avoid binary all or nothing words like "victory" "defeat", win/lose etc, as they are unhelpful. Simply describe the course of events and let the reader work it out.46.11.225.78 (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox military conflict

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Keith-264 (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Exackery what I was suggesting. I've used a link to the Aftermath section in a couple of MilHist A-Class articles, the syntax is a simple piped link to the section concerned. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm experimenting with Template:Infobox military operation as an alternative but I really ought to read the instructions first. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)